But this is also a tale of tensions within the Party about whether
to continue to focus on fighting corruption or start trying something else—less
about rectification and more about reform.

What is a “lion cadre” anyway—or one that would embody the
values of a lion [狮子型干部] in Chinese politics?

According to Wuhan’s Communist party chief Chen Yixin [陈一新], it’s a person
“whose loyalty is clean, whose ideology is liberated, whose thinking is open,
and who is willing to fight for as well as play with new ideas”. Chen says that
more committed and innovative officials are needed for Wuhan because "after
the main political line is determined, the cadres are the decisive factors"
in carrying it out.

Wuhan’s problem is that these “lions” are as scarce and elusive
in Chinese political life as they are in nature.

In fact, in this period of “the new normal” [新常态] where reform and
development need to be deepened—a favorite theme of Party chief Xi Jinping and
his allies-- there are those in the Party rank-and-file who, according to
Chen, simply aren’t up to the task:

“In reality, some cadres occupy important
positions, but have proven themselves unable to exert command or grasp the
overall situation, as they lack the competence, the ability, and the fighting
spirit to dare to tackle that which is difficult. These same cadres become
hopeless, stand by and watch, doing nothing, while local development gets left
behind and the people's livelihood turns bitter. This situation has not only
affected reform and development plans, but also harmed the Party’s connection
with popular sentiment.”

Those are serious charges: Quite apart from some cadres being
corrupt, some are being labeled as incompetent.

In order to locate officials in Wuhan capable of being
“lions”, research units in the city government have been tasked to find about
100 cadres capable of filling various bureau-level positions. But after a month
and a half of looking about for those qualified, the article concedes, many
posts remain unfilled. It was probably a mistake, the essay acknowledges, to
think “that there’s a Bo
Le [伯乐] in Wuhan”—a figure in the Zhou dynasty
with the uncanny ability to identify wild horses capable of being tamed for
service to the State—that is, a single good judge of hidden talent.

In fact, what’s really needed, according to the article, are
“institutional mechanisms [体制机制]”—systems in place that will assess
performance, and separate actual change-agents from the change-artists. If the
Party can “establish a sound and effective assessment as part of the current supervision
and approval apparatus, as well as vigorously creating a good environment for
cadres to do a good job in their respective positions to open up a new frontier,”
then it should prove easier to locate the lions the locality--and the nation--need.

That’s an interesting argument, in part because it’s really
an attack on the system as it is; a criticism of Beijing’s anti-corruption
campaign, which is cleaning up the Party but isn’t solving the fundamental
problem of competency. When all Beijing wants to do is punish officials for
wrongs committed, cadres become even more cautious about experimenting—they
become lambs. They’re not enough lions, Chen and others are saying, because
they’ve not been encouraged to breed.

What Chen and his allies want is to feel supported when they
are pro-active in solving problems, for Party life to have greater meaning,
something beyond meetings, meandering speeches, and admonitions against
malfeasance. They see the problem as organizational, and they’re pushing reform
instead of Party rectification—and not for Beijing to think that the latter is
the former.

That will be a tough sell. But this conversation about what
to do in Wuhan reflects the
larger debate among local Party members about what changes in politics are needed to make
what the Party does more relevant to citizens and cadres alike.

Some commentators
argue that the challenge is in the way Party cadres are trained in Wuhan
and elsewhere, and that needs to be changed.

Others insist
that officials aren’t allowed enough latitude to make local decisions and what
plagues Wuhan cadres is a lack of initiative. There are also commentators who
hint that “lion cadres” need to be identified and introduced into the ranks
immediately, to take a chance with new people, instead of going through the
usual vetting channels which would likely produce the same torpid results.

Of course, no one notable within the Party is advocating democratic reform either. But reform-minded
officials and their advisers concur that while it’s good to be clean, it’s now time
for the Party to get more courageous.

Whether Wuhan can find its “lions” is one question. But what it
means if Wuhan succeeds in its experiment is another issue entirely—especially if it inspires some
local officials to be fearless in pushing for change on their terms. Some
months from now, the problem might not be Wuhan locating “lions” but Beijing
finding enough lion tamers.